Happy to spell it out for you... You clearly adopted the...

Happy to spell it out for you...
You clearly adopted the position of defending the company's decision in not offering options holders a lifeline by questioning why they should even bother considering doing such a thing.
Options that lapse will result in the company overlooking cash to bank.
Cash, a company like this would greatly welcome.
When I refer to "extending ", only the ones seeking to argue semantics will take issue with it.
It's clear as night follows day what is meant by "extending ".
Can the current options under the current code be extended? No.
Could options holders be offered an opportunity to, under SH approval, re-purchase their current holdings which would result in said holders being given an extension on their current holdings, albeit under a new code? Yes.
You're grasping at straws when needing the above elaborated in such a manner, IMO.
I never inferred you discussed management.
You're misguided in thinking such a thing.
My point, clearly, was your inability to differentiate between the angst "opinionnator" had toward management rather than the resources the company has yet to explore.
The tenements are an untapped potential resource but I never stated you described them as such.
It seems your efforts in simply trying to keep up has you reading into comments incorrectly.
As for your remarks pertaining to "mates" keeping the company going, I find that utterly appalling.
If you can show me where any of these "mates" have kept the discounted shares they were given during their CR contributions, then we can all acknowledge your claim has merit.
Otherwise, it's beyond naive to think any of them haven't dumped.
Finally, how does a company continue with its operations without CR's? Not sure.
However, what I am sure of is, there are limits to how many CR's a company should undertake before acknowledging that they are leading the masses up the garden path.
If the company's convinced in what they're proposing to their SH's during a CR, how many chances should they be given when they keep coming up empty?
If the company is convinced in what they're proposing to their "SI's", and the SI's are all about progression of the company's endeavours, shouldn't they accept their placement to be escrowed for at least 12 months, preventing any offloading, resulting in a disparaging SP? Of course they should!

Hope that helped spelling it out for you...